Welcome to PatsFans.com

Gas tax break: real solution?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsWSB47, May 5, 2008.

  1. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,766
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +109 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    Is Clinton pandering for votes or does she have something there?
  2. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,892
    Likes Received:
    120
    Ratings:
    +305 / 1 / -9

    She's always pandering.

    The people themselves could do it if they would sick together,
    Only drive when you absolutely have to
    One day a month every person in America "don't drive" stay home from work if possible.
    Spend you vacation in your back yard.
    Spend your week ends in your back yard
    BUT WE WON'T.

    They interviewd a loony housewife on the news this morning while she was "filling er up" at the gas pump, instead of showing anger this f-cking dummy was grinning and giggling about how she has to take her kids to their soccer game (tee hee)

    Stick it up their a$s Exxon they love it, they're all out there now buying their White Shorts and cleaning up the Motorhomes & their Speed Boats.
  3. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,460
    Likes Received:
    134
    Ratings:
    +283 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    God bless George Harken Oil Bush and Richard Halliburton Cheney.

    And the answer to the OP is, YES, Hilary Clinton is pandering. The "No Tax" (let our country and our future generations rot) politicians have always pandered to the knee-jerk, immediate gratification fetish of many in our country. Who needs "infrastructure" when we can buy our country club memberships on our American Express?

    Good for Obama in taking the pricipled stance. In my opinion, the Feds should QUINTUPLE the gas tax and put the additional revenue towards tax credits for Hybrids, solar homes and mass transit. I agree with Harry. Stick it up Exxon's *****.
    Last edited: May 5, 2008
  4. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    What is she NOT pandering to?
    Points to Obama for not falling for this. He will score on it in the long run.
    Last edited: May 5, 2008
  5. MosiT

    MosiT Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Why is anyone asking if Hillary is pandering? Wasn't it John McCain who first came up with this senile idea?

    18 cents a gallon. WOW, the average American will save about three dollars a week for a few weeks. Of course that would probably be offset by oil companies continuing to increase the price to the distributor which will increase the price to the consumer.

    The oil companies lose nothing, the government loses nothing and the middle class American takes it up the arse again.

    And at the same time our bridges and roads don't get repaired because the revenue that normally would have gone to get it done is gone because John McCain's idea caused it not to be collected.
  6. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Should a moderator really say *****?

    :D
  7. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,766
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +109 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    I see, so why Hillary is taking credit for this senile idea? She does that alot.
  8. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,348
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +256 / 8 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Of course you're number is totally misleading too as that is just Federal Tax. From 2005 (the best link I could find) :

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html

    "Today, U.S. consumers pay an average of 45.9 cents per gallon in gasoline taxes."

    Regarding profits :

    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_government_really_make_more_in.html

    "For example, in 2007, ExxonMobil's after-tax earnings were 10.4 percent, much higher than the industry average."

    So even with $4 gasoline the "much higher than average" EM would make less in profit than there is in taxes.

    So we arrive at the Inconvenient Truth that the mean, evil oil companies profit less from gas than the mean, evil government.
  9. MosiT

    MosiT Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The proposed "Gas Tax Holiday" is for the federal portion only, about 18.7 cents a gallon.

    Each state would have to have their own bill to remove state taxes which for the most part are higher than the federal taxes on gas. And most states can not afford to do it.

    Also gas taxes are paid for by the owners of the gas stations on flat rate of 18.7 per gallon and then that amount is added to their retail price for gas, while in many states local gas taxes are a percentage of the cost of gas and fluctuate a lot.

    Any cutback on federal taxes at the pump can easily bemanipulated by the oil companies by raising the price of gas to the distributors and you can rest assured that they will do it. Greed consumes all.

    Lets say gas is selling for $3.50 a gallon. Now the price comes down 18.7 cents per gallon to what should be $3.32. The oil companies will increase price to distributors, say a dime a gallon, which will reap them additional fortunes, and the cost to the consumer will only come down 8.7 cents to about 3.42.

    Lower price to the consumer who thinks it's great but in reality it could have been lower if not for the oil company greed. And that is exactly what will happen. Greed consumes all.
  10. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,348
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +256 / 8 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    I don't really care what it's for. Gas prices don't bother me, I don't drive that much, it doesn't cost me much. I just wanted to point out that we pay more in gas tax than oil companies make in profit.
  11. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,766
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +109 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    It's a shame Hillary may very well win based on that proposed sham isn't it?
  12. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,348
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +256 / 8 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    The sham is people constantly berating oil companies' profits when we pay more in gas taxes. You Libs have to have someone to complain about and blame, I guess.
  13. atomdomb

    atomdomb Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    exxon's first quarter earnings

    Revenue rose to $116.8 billion from $87.2 billion a year earlier.

    Revenue up 25%. Cost for barrell of oil up over the same time 66%

    Earnings for the first three months of the year rose to $10.9 billion up from $9.3 billion.

    This is 9% profit margin. 10.9 billion is a huge number, but the profit margin isn't outrageous at all.
  14. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,460
    Likes Received:
    134
    Ratings:
    +283 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    You're confused in your economics there, BF.

    Your misuse of the term "revenue" as "profit" in the Government scenario has confused you......i.e. Exxon's AFTER TAX EARNINGS were 10.4% of the avg $3.01 per gallon in 2007, however the GROSS REVENUE part was the entire per gallon price minus the gas tax portion.

    The Government (Fed and State) made (on avg) 45.9 cents per gallon in GROSS REVENUE. None of that went to anyone's private "profits" (insert joke here).

    Exxon, therefore made (on state avg) $2.56 per gallon in GROSS REVENUE. 10.4% of that amount went corporate and shareholder profits.

    I hope that clears that up.
    Last edited: May 5, 2008
  15. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,348
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +256 / 8 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    All it clears up is that you are a partisan trying to make the oil companies look bad. The government "makes" more per gallon than the oil companies do.
  16. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,460
    Likes Received:
    134
    Ratings:
    +283 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey


    Nice attitude.

    I was merely clarifying the terms "revenue" and "profit" there.

    There was no need to get personal.

    BTW, your contention that the Gov makes more per gallon than the oil companies do is completely false. It's not subjective. The numbers don't lie. In 2007, Exxon made (on state avg) $2.56 in gross revenue per gallon. The fed and avg state made 45.9 cents per gallon in gross revenue.

    Exxon had a 10.4% profit from that revenue. As we all know, the Federal Government is deeply in the red and had no surplus from the tax (if it had the equivalent of a profit from that, it would either lower taxes, use the profit to spend more or it would pay down the national debt - - something we haven't seen since the last administration).

    The terms "revenue" and "profit" are unequal economic terms and cannot be used as side by side comparison.
    Last edited: May 5, 2008
  17. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,348
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +256 / 8 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    The numbers I found links to said exactly what I said. That the amount we pay in gas tax is more per gallon that the profit made by oil companies. I agree - the numbers don't lie. If you have other numbers you can show, go ahead. Show me where oil companies are making more than 46 cents per gallon of gas.
  18. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,460
    Likes Received:
    134
    Ratings:
    +283 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    Once again, you confuse REVENUE with PROFIT.

    Exxon 2007 per gallon revenue: $2.56
    Fed and avg State Gov't per gallon revenue: $.459
    Exxon Profit per gallon: $.266


    The first two lines are apples to apples. You are taking an apples to oranges comparison for lines 2 and 3. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you merely did not know better. The other alternative would be that you were purposely trying to deceive. I honestly don't believe you were purposely trying to deceive.

    It's as if you are saying the Baltimore Orioles had a better 2007 than the New England Patrios because they won more games.
    Last edited: May 5, 2008
  19. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,348
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +256 / 8 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Whatever. For taxes, profit and revenue are the same. You choose to be a partisan by calling it revenue when you know darn well that it is much more legitimate to present the tax "revenue" as profit as it is all profit.

    The point I have been trying to make is that (according to your numbers), we pay 76% more in gas tax than we do to oil company profit per gallon. As I said before, for all the berating of oil companies, they could be non profit and it would be barely noticed at the pump.
  20. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,460
    Likes Received:
    134
    Ratings:
    +283 / 0 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    What?

    Really......what?

    I just gave an objective, black and white economic definition of the terms "Revenue" and "Profit" and how they are different. That's Remedial Economics 101. Most kids learn that early in High School.

    Yes, we do pay 76% more in gas tax than we do to oil company profits......and the Baltimore Orioles won 60+ games more than the New England Patriots in 2007. Want to continue your deception/confusion?

    Apples to apples, revenue to revenue, it's $2.56 Exxon, $.459 Gov't.

    Exxon had a profit. As we all know, the Fed Gov't (and most state gov'ts) can only dream of having surpluses in this decade.

    And regarding your crutch of "partisan" namecalling, I earlier in this thread came down hard on Hilary Clinton as a panderer on this issue. One of us is actually looking at this issue, and the other is running directly to political spin.
    Last edited: May 5, 2008

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>